Dismissed¶6

Union of India v. Inder Pal

Delhi HC16 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/19594/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India v. Inder Pal; W.P.(C) 19594/2025; Delhi High Court; dismissal of writ petition for inordinate delay (about three years) and half-baked pleading; imposition of Rs. 25,000 cost payable to Poor Patients Fund, AIIMS, recoverable from the responsible officer; challenge to CAT Principal Bench orders in O.A. 2468/2016 and R.A. 99/2022; liberty to refile fresh petition with complete record upon payment of costs; no advocate appeared for the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh petition with the complete record relevant for adjudication, subject to payment of the Rs. 25,000/- costs; proof of payment of costs to be filed within two weeks. ¶6

Union of India Vs Inder Pal — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file a fresh petition with the complete record relevant for adjudication, subject to payment of the Rs. 25,000/- costs; proof of payment of costs to be filed within two weeks.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's orders should be entertained despite having been filed only in December 2025 after an inordinate delay of about three years, and despite being half-baked (the order dated 07.12.2022 not attached and complete record not furnished).

¶3

Court's answer

The Court dismissed the petition with costs, observing that half-baked petitions are being filed before it and that it was left with no choice but to dismiss.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The cost of Rs. 25,000/- is payable to the Poor Patients Fund, AIIMS, New Delhi, and shall be recoverable from the Officer who took the decision to file such half-baked petition.

¶4

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to file a fresh petition along with the complete record relevant for its adjudication, subject to payment of the costs imposed by the Court.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Division Bench: Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.), order dated 16.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 19594/2025 — Union of India v. Inder Pal. The petitioner Union of India sought quashing of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 2468/2016 (O.A. allowed on 20.10.2022; Review Application R.A. 99/2022 dismissed on 07.12.2022). The Court declined to entertain the petition because it was filed only in December 2025 after an inordinate delay of about three years and was half-baked — the order dated 07.12.2022 was not even attached. The petition, along with pending applications, was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Poor Patients Fund, AIIMS, New Delhi, recoverable from the Officer who took the decision to file the half-baked petition. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition with the complete record, subject to payment of the costs, proof of payment to be filed within two weeks.

¶1

$~2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 19594/2025, CM APPL. 81910/2025, CM APPL. 81911/2025 and CM APPL. 81912/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, SPC along with Mr. Sandeep Mishra and Mr. Harshit Deshwal, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

INDER PAL .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 16.01.2026

¶9

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:

¶10

“i. May kindly call the complete record of the Ld. Tribunal in OA 2468/16 decided by Ld. CAT New Delhi and;

¶11

ii. Pass the direction to quash the impugned orders of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi dated 07.12.2022 in O.A. 2468 of 2016;”

¶12

It is evident from a reading of the synopsis as well as list of dates and events, which form part of the present petition, that the Original Application (O.A.) bearing no.2468/2016 filed by the Respondent before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’], was allowed on 20.10.2022. Subsequently, the Petitioner Department filed a Review Application (R.A.) bearing no. 99/2022, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 07.12.2022.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 12:57:37

¶15

Notably, the present Petition seeking to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal, came to be filed only in December 2025, after an inordinate delay of 03 years. To add irony to delay, one of the orders under challenge, namely the order dated 07.12.2022, has not been attached to the petition.

¶16

It is evident that half-baked petitions are being filed before this Court, in such circumstances, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss this Petition with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) payable to the Poor Patients Fund, AIIMS, New Delhi, which shall be recoverable from the Officer, who took decision to file such half-baked Petition.

¶17

However, liberty is granted to file a fresh Petition along with complete record relevant for its adjudication, subject to payment of the costs imposed by this Court. The proof of payment of costs shall be filed within a period of two weeks.

¶18

Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶21

JANUARY 16, 2026 s.godara/hr

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 12:57:37

Union of India v. Inder Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Inder Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aecom Technical Services Inc. Vs Income-Tax Officer Ward Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Rita Pillai Vs Payal Dewangana

Rajeev Ranjan Vederah Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Shiv Lal & Ors. Vs Central Public Works Department(Cpwd) & Anr.

Vivek Mukherji Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt Geeta Devi Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Nigam Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indu Rawat Vs Delhi Urban Art Commission & Anr.

Kusum Lata Vs Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs R. K. Gogia

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Savita Kumari Mann

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar

National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Vs Ms. Shweta & Ors.

Directorate of Estates Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Vs Rajiv Sarin & Ors.